Hi Martin,
I understand what you're saying but my point was that there are no
publicly available js libs that implement ARML2 at the moment which is
why I thought it didn't qualify "at the moment".
How about I make this compromise. I'll add a footnote about ARML2 and
link to your blog post on your "prototype-AR Window implementation".
Hope that works for everyone.
roBman
On 12/12/12 20:18, Martin Lechner wrote:
> Hi Rob, George, et.al!
>
> sorry for following up a little late here.
> Rob, good to see that there's consolidated movement also within the W3C
> Community Group now, and that you're taking the lead here!
>
> My opinion on how ARML2 [1] relates to the W3C Community Group:
> While you are right that ARML2 does not have a native implementation in
> a browser yet, our prototype-AR Window implementation [1] shows that it
> can be implemented in a web browsers plugin-free with web technologies
> such as WebGL and the various JS APIs, such as GeoLocation and
> DeviceOrientation for the spatial part. The ComputerVision-Part can also
> be implemented plugin-free and solely in JS, as described by a paper of
> TU Graz [2].
>
> ARML2 can be seen as the language describing the AR scene, which is
> complementary to and uses the APIs the browsers expose. In fact, it
> takes a JS library to make ARML2 webbrowser-compliant, rather than a
> native implementation in the browser (which of course might bring a
> certain speedup eventually, especially in the CV part).
> So, to summarize, I ask to include ARML2 in the discussion, and not
> cross it off the list because it does not yet run in a native browser.
> I'm happy to give more insight on request.
>
> Thanks,
> Martin
>
> [1] - http://www.opengeospatial.org/projects/groups/arml2.0swg
> [2] -
> http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/05/16/wikitude-takes-its-augmented-reality-beyond-apps-and-direct-to-the-mobile-web/
> or http://www.wikitude.com/wikitude-lab-takes-augmented-reality-web
> [3] -
> http://icg.tugraz.at/publications/natural-feature-tracking-in-javascript/at_download/file
>
>
>
> Am 01.12.2012 05:28, schrieb Rob Manson:
>> Hi George,
>>
>>>>> Good to see AR discussion in W3C.
>>> ...unless its a walled garden.
>>> You really do not plan to include ARML in "related standards".
>>
>> Sorry if it appeared that way...that's definitely not the case. I've
>> added this content to the top of the Related Standards page to make it
>> a little clearer.
>>
>> Here is an overview of the key standards that are enabling the
>> Augmented Web. The standards listed on this page are capable of
>> running inside some version of a standard web browser from one of the
>> mainstream web browser vendors today.
>>
>> NOTE: If you are interested in a broader set of Augmented Reality
>> standards then please view the ARStandards.org list[1].
>>
>> I hope this helps make sense of the difference between the 2 lists.
>>
>>
>>> ARML1 was discussed in a prior W3C AR workshop.
>>
>> Nothing that happens in this CG mandates any particular action
>> anywhere in the W3C. So there's definitely no impact here.
>>
>>
>>> ARML2 is going through the OGC process for adoption as an OGC standard.
>>> The OGC process requires at least two or more commitments to
>>> implementation.
>>
>> I'm sure that's the case and what I took away from discussions at the
>> ARStandards meeting was that none of these had commenced yet or had
>> real plans to in the short term.
>>
>>
>>> To not consider ARML2 in W3C seems to be a blind spot.
>>
>> I'm sure the OGC will continue discussions with the W3C about the
>> overlap between all of your standards. As I said, this CG really
>> doesn't have any impact on that.
>>
>> And I hope it's now clear that I'm not "excluding" ARML...it's just
>> that to be included on that Related Standards[2] page a standard must
>> have a working implementation in a version of a mainstream web browser
>> today.
>>
>> This is not just some arbitrary decision. This is directly related to
>> the new Charter[3] and I hope that I've been really clear as to why
>> this makes sense.
>>
>> roBman
>>
>> [1] http://www.perey.com/ARStandards/existing-standards/
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/community/ar/related-standards/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/community/ar/wiki/Charter
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 25, 2012, at 12:51 PM, Rob Manson <roBman@mob-labs.com
>>> <mailto:roBman@mob-labs.com>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi George,
>>>>
>>>>> Good to see AR discussion in W3C. Enjoyed your paper at the AR
>>>>> Community meeting.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Suggest your list of AR standards should add ARML2.
>>>>
>>>> I was going to include it but it doesn't currently have any web
>>>> browsers that parse or support it. So at the moment it can't
>>>> currently be classified as an Augmented Web related standard.
>>>>
>>>> The dynamic binding is closer and if somebody implemented a library
>>>> that makes this work within one of the mainstream web browsers then
>>>> that could change. But for now I would classify it as an "AR
>>>> Standard" and not an "Augmented Web Standard".
>>>>
>>>> BTW: Have any of the AR Browser Vendors committed to implementing it?
>>>> From memory both Martin and Hafez said that they weren't yet working
>>>> on this.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> News about POI WG:
>>>>> Ian Jacobs sent a mail to W3C members that the POI WG is closed as of
>>>>> September 2012, and that no further progress is foreseen. See
>>>>> https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ac-members/2012JulSep/0061.html
>>>>>
>>>>> (member
>>>>> only).
>>>>> A "Places" community group
>>>>> <http://www.w3.org/community/places/> focusing on representing POI in
>>>>> microformats, RDF and JSON has been created. The Open Geospatial
>>>>> Consortium <http://www.opengeospatial.org/> is in the process of
>>>>> creating a standards working group to standardize the POI conceptual
>>>>> data model and XML encoding.
>>>>
>>>> Yep I saw the email about that on the POI WG mailing list. If any
>>>> "Place/Location" based standards based on
>>>> microformats/microdata/RDF/JSON please let me know and I'll add that
>>>> to the Related Standards list.
>>>>
>>>> roBman
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Discussion mailing list
>> Discussion@arstandards.org
>> http://arstandards.org/mailman/listinfo/discussion
>>
>